Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, destructiveHint=false and openWorldHint=false, so the description does not have to restate the safety profile. It does add useful behavioral context: the tool returns the FULL text ('全文'), accepts a search-result id, a URL, or a path, and tolerates Japanese characters. It stays silent on truncation or size limits for very large pages, which is a minor gap.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is three compact sentences: what it returns, how to supply 'id', and when to call it, with the core purpose front-loaded. The parenthetical site-name gloss ('CodeNate-こうでねーと-' / codenate.jp) is slightly decorative, but everything else earns its place.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool has one required parameter and an output schema, so the return format needs no explanation here. The description covers purpose, input flexibility, and the accuracy-verification use case. Only the lack of sibling differentiation against get_page keeps it from being fully complete.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%, so the single 'id' parameter is already fully documented in the schema. The description largely repeats that (id = search-result id, URL, or path, Japanese allowed) rather than adding new meaning, so it earns the baseline 3 for high-coverage schemas.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states a specific verb and resource ('読み込んだページの本文を全文返します'), which is clear enough that an agent knows it retrieves the body text of a page on codenate.jp. The gap is that it never distinguishes itself from the close siblings 'get_page' and 'search_pages': an agent cannot tell from the description whether 'fetch' and 'get_page' do the same thing.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description gives a concrete trigger: whenever accuracy matters (prices, dates, conditions, terms), you should verify the body text with this tool before answering. It also explains that results from a 'search' can be passed in via their id. It stops short of stating when NOT to use this tool or which sibling to pick instead.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.